Explain how the concept of whole community is used at the local level of government to mitigate against risk. Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided to you in order to support your response. Your initial post should be at least 350 words. APA format, use ctations. Lesson Week Two – The National Preparedness System In March of 2011, the executive branch of the federal government issued Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 8.  This directive described how the nation will prepare for those threats and hazards that constitute the greatest risk to national security.  PPD 8 was followed in the fall of that same year with the publication of the National Preparedness Goal (which was updated in 2015), and then a month later with the National Preparedness System (NPS).  Similar to the term “risk” that was focused upon in our first lesson, “prepare” or “preparedness” are key terms as well as it relates to the underlying principles of this entire course.  In order to properly examine the National Preparedness System, these terms as used within the context of the NPS must be understood.  As previously noted, we directed attention upon the notion of risk last week.  We should remain cognizant that risk refers to the overall consequences represented by various types of threats and hazards.  The analysis of risk rests within an all-hazards system and approach, wherein all dangers to a community are examined. In addition, these dangers are prioritized, not on preconceived notions of importance, but upon the actual, detrimental impact they have on a community.  Acts of terrorism and of other man-made incidents of violence must be considered alongside natural and technological hazards as well; prioritized in a manner where preparedness and mitigation efforts can be appropriately discussed, formulated, and implemented. In essence, through its various components, the National Preparedness System offers a very consistent and dependable methodology that can be applied to a host of activities; those that range from aiding the decision making process to identifying and allocating resources (DHS, 2011). So just as the NPS requires us to take a broad view of those elements that determine risk, it similarly requires us to take a wide-ranging view of preparedness as well.  In essence, preparedness refers to a community’s ability to respond immediately to a disastrous event (remember, disaster events range from acts of terrorism to industrial accidents to natural disasters).  Preparedness also refers to the community’s ability to recover from the event; and preparedness refers to all of those actions taken by the community to either prevent the event, or to mitigate the consequences of that event. Within the National Preparedness System, the National Preparedness Goal (2015) defines the system’s measure of success as “A secure and resilient nation with capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respon ...

1. Explain how the concept of whole community is used at the
local level of government to mitigate against risk.
Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided
to you in order to support your response. Your initial post
should be at least 350 words. APA format, use ctations.
Lesson
Week Two – The National Preparedness System
In March of 2011, the executive branch of the federal
government issued Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 8. This
directive described how the nation will prepare for those threats
and hazards that constitute the greatest risk to national security.
PPD 8 was followed in the fall of that same year with the
publication of the National Preparedness Goal (which was
updated in 2015), and then a month later with the National
Preparedness System (NPS). Similar to the term “risk” that was
focused upon in our first lesson, “prepare” or “preparedness”
are key terms as well as it relates to the underlying principles of
this entire course. In order to properly examine the National
Preparedness System, these terms as used within the context of
the NPS must be understood.
As previously noted, we directed attention upon the notion of
risk last week. We should remain cognizant that risk refers to
the overall consequences represented by various types of threats
and hazards. The analysis of risk rests within an all-hazards
system and approach, wherein all dangers to a community are
examined. In addition, these dangers are prioritized, not on
preconceived notions of importance, but upon the actual,
detrimental impact they have on a community. Acts of
terrorism and of other man-made incidents of violence must be
considered alongside natural and technological hazards as well;
prioritized in a manner where preparedness and mitigation
efforts can be appropriately discussed, formulated, and
implemented. In essence, through its various components, the
National Preparedness System offers a very consistent and

2. dependable methodology that can be applied to a host of
activities; those that range from aiding the decision making
process to identifying and allocating resources (DHS, 2011).
So just as the NPS requires us to take a broad view of those
elements that determine risk, it similarly requires us to take a
wide-ranging view of preparedness as well. In essence,
preparedness refers to a community’s ability to respond
immediately to a disastrous event (remember, disaster events
range from acts of terrorism to industrial accidents to natural
disasters). Preparedness also refers to the community’s ability
to recover from the event; and preparedness refers to all of
those actions taken by the community to either prevent the
event, or to mitigate the consequences of that event.
Within the National Preparedness System, the National
Preparedness Goal (2015) defines the system’s measure of
success as “A secure and resilient nation with capabilities
required across the whole community to prevent, protect
against, mitigate, respond to and recover from the threats and
hazards that pose the greatest risk (p. 1).” This definition of
success is then translated throughout the entire homeland
security enterprise; all levels of government and the various
departments and agencies found within, the private sector, non-
governmental organizations, and the public at large. So as it
relates to this overall Goal and the inherent need for our nation
to be more resilient; that capability to “bounce back” from the
effects of a disaster can be equally applied to any state, county,
municipality, or township. Likewise, this sense of resiliency is
required of any privately-owned entity as well, where Attention
would need to be directed towards the maintenance of its own
designated business functions and practices, or at the very least,
towards reducing the impact of the disaster upon its financial
interests. Ideally, we could even look at individual families in
light of the Goal’s definition of success. The integration of all
of these collective efforts is a key element to our nation’s
overall success in preparing for those events that could produce
detrimental effects. This multi-layered, integrated approach to

3. planning and cooperation is commonly referred to as the “whole
community,” a broad-based approach that seeks to fully engage
all facets of our society. By doing so, a broader understanding
of the threats and hazards that are being faced and the
associated capabilities in addressing them will be realized. In
addition, the relationships needed to carry out needed activities
can be formulated and/or strengthened. Also, such an
integration of resources can result in empowering the individual
and collective capacities found across this community (FEMA,
2011).
Incorporating the expertise and resources found within the
whole community is certainly a needed prerequisite if our
nation is to achieve the level of preparedness it has set for
itself. These resources must also maintain and carry out certain
core capabilities that are needed to execute the five mission
areas as identified by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The five mission areas and their definitions are
· Prevention: The avoidance or stopping of an act of terrorism.
Prevention is the only mission area that is not all-hazards in
nature. Prevention looks solely towards the avoidance of
terrorist acts.
· Protection: The shielding of our citizens and property against
threats and hazards.
· Mitigation: Measures taken to lessen the consequences of
critical incidents upon our citizens and communities.
· Response: Immediate actions taken upon the occurrence of a
disaster event to save lives, to protect property, to protect the
environment, and to ensure basic human needs are provided for
in the immediate aftermath of a disaster event.
· Recovery: The restoration (and, ideally, the strengthening and
revitalization) of critical infrastructure; of normal everyday life
for our citizens and of the economy. (DHS, 2011)
As you delve into this week’s readings, you will see these
various core capabilities that are needed to support the overall
objectives related to these five mission areas. In some areas,
you will see some repetition, and this repetition is purposeful,

4. as there is a great deal of integration and overlapping of the
mission areas and their core capabilities. However, only three
core capabilities are common to all five mission areas:
planning, public information and warning, and operational
coordination. It is certainly prudent that planning efforts must
be considered and carried out on a continual basis related to all
aspects of preparedness. For example, we must plan for proper
disaster response. We must also plan for ways in which we will
mitigate against the impacts of disasters, and so on. It also
makes sense that the public would need to be kept informed
through all of the mission areas as well. Other core capabilities
may be common to two or three mission areas, but not all five.
As an example, the capability to perform screening, as well as
search and detection activities are found in both the prevention
and protection missions. Within the five mission areas, we can
also note examples of overlap. Likewise, a focus upon
infrastructure systems is an integral component of both response
and recovery efforts. A table is provided below (Figure 1) that
illustrates these core capabilities and the manner in which they
support these broad initiatives. I would encourage you to review
the National Preparedness Goal, as there is a chapter devoted to
each mission, where details are provided for each of the
supporting core capabilities as well.
(Figure 1: Department of Homeland Security, National
Preparedness Goal, 2015)
The unique nature of the prevention mission area has already
been noted in that it is the only mission area that is not all-
hazards in nature, as it is intended to serve solely as an anti-
terrorism initiative. Many might feel that because it is so
focused upon terrorist-related activities that the “whole
community” cannot be involved in it; that only government,
first responders, etc. can carry out its related core capabilities.
While there is some validity in the fact that only certain
agencies and personnel possess the expertise and equipment to
carry these out, all aspects of our society can aid in this effort

5. as well. Whether it is being incorporated in the planning
process, actively engaging in information sharing, or other
supporting efforts, all can be engaged in some form or fashion.
This same collaborative environment is needed in each of the
five missions. And even though Federal agencies like DHS are
ultimately responsible for carrying out the goals and objectives
associated with these areas, the greatest roles and impact are
actually found at the state and local levels. As former DHS
Secretary Janet Napolitano stated, “All of our efforts are guided
by a simple but powerful, idea - homeland security begins with
hometown security. We are all safer when local law
enforcement works together with the communities and citizens
they serve, and their partners in the Federal government and the
private sector, to protect against the threats we face”
(“Homeland Security Starts,” n.d., p. 1). Local governments, for
example, perform their own threat and hazard identification
analyses; the federal government does not do it for them. Local
government is responsible for the repair of community
infrastructure following a disaster event. The federal
government may support with financial assistance in some
cases, but will usually not otherwise become involved. So it is
obvious that our nation’s overall preparedness is a function and
product of countless partnerships that have been formulated and
the activities they carry out.
To adequately bring these resources together is a coordinated
and complete manner; National Preparedness System is an
integration of six components related to the mission areas and
the core components. A common visual representation of these
components is below as Figure 2, taken from the National
Preparedness System (2011) document itself.
(Figure 2: Department of Homeland Security, National
Preparedness System, 2011)
The six components have overlap, but the process really begins
with the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
(THIRA), that we touched upon in last week’s lesson. Once

6. hazards are identified and prioritized according to risk, the
capabilities that are found within our communities is estimated
and compared with needed requirements in order to be as
resilient as possible. The gap between our existing capabilities
and those capabilities that are needed is what is focused upon in
the “Building and Sustaining Capabilities” component.
Whatever the level of capabilities a community needs is fully
satisfied with its current resources or gaps have been identified;
the capacity to meet identified challenges must be determined.
This is particularly true in cases where jurisdictions assets
might be dependent upon mutual aid agreements or similar
contracts with fellow homeland security stakeholders.
Throughout this process, it is imperative that planning is
structured, measured, and fully documented. Much of this is
accomplished as capabilities are validated, which is typically
done through education, training, and associated exercises.
Lastly, the “Reviewing and Updating” component is carried out
at various times and related to certain situations. For instance,
after any training exercise is completed or a jurisdiction
experiences a “real world” event, plans and capabilities must be
reviewed to determine if needed changes are in order. As a
whole, plans must be continuously assessed for any revisions
that might need to be made. Why might this be the case? One
reason might be a change in the overall risk climate; those that
directly impact these capabilities. Let’s face it, threats and
hazards are dynamic in nature and present themselves when
least expected. Likewise, capabilities ebb and flow with
fluctuations in budgets, or with circumstantial modifications in
local and adjacent demographics. So it must be realized that
there is no end date to these six components of the NPS; that
they are perpetual in nature, and this cycle must be carried out
on a continual basis.
As a whole, the National Preparedness System is a living,
breathing one; as it is continually being updated and revised to
meet the ever-evolving nature of homeland security and its
associated challenges. A perfect example has been the

7. formulation and implementation of frameworks that are
associated with each of the five mission areas. As noted by
DHS, “the Frameworks foster a shared understanding of our
roles and responsibilities from the fire house to the White
House” (“National Planning Frameworks,” n.d., under “About
the Frameworks”). These documents were actually a
culmination of a concerted effort that solicited ideas from
various stakeholders, partners, and practitioners throughout the
homeland security enterprise; truly an example of the “whole
community” in action. The NPS is also referred to as living
because it can be adjusted for any level of government, and for
nearly any organization. Since the NPS is reliant upon its
ability to both identify and address needs related to both
national and local level resiliency, this ability to adjust is
essential in the examination of homeland security risks, threats
and consequences.
In conclusion, remember that the NPS not only adopts an all-
hazards approach, but assumes a broad view of preparedness as
well. Also, the nation’s ability to adequately deal with threats
and hazards is dependent upon all levels of government, and
both the public and private sectors. Granted, the federal
government must lead by example as it relates to its role by
determining risks and consequences at the national level; but
those same functions and responsibilities carried out at the local
level is where a large measure of our nation’s homeland
security functions reside. The NPS is based upon the premise
and understanding that it takes the “whole community,”
beginning at the grassroots level to make the entire country as
prepared and resilient as possible.
References
Department of Homeland Security (2011). National
preparedness system. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.
Department of Homeland Security. (2015). National
preparedness goal. Washington D.C.: Government Printing
Office.

8. FEMA. (2011). A whole community approach to emergency
management: Principles, themes, and pathways for action.
Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Homeland Security Starts with Hometown Security. (n.d.).
Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/bahamas/8325/pdf/dhssheet.pdf
National Planning Frameworks. (n.d.). Department of Homeland
Security. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/national-
planning-frameworks
Analyze the following as they pertain to Port Security
Management and economic dependency on Maritime
Transportation; the Global Transportation System and the
Maritime Transportation Security Act, 2002.
Instructions: Your initial post should be at least 350 words.
Use APA format and include citations